Re: How Irreducibly Complex Systems Evolve. Data Behe must deal with.

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 20:52:59 EDT

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Re: TE-man"

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    ID (intelligent design) folk and IC (Irreducibly complexity) folk
    should speak for themselves, but I felt compelled to respond to
    part of this.

    <<
     The ID group needs to cease looking for evidence of design in biological
     systems. It isn't there. While I believe that the universe is designed, I
     simply don't think that biological systems are capable of yielding evidence
     for design. As such, we should be honest with ourselves and our readers.
    >>

    It does look increasingly like this is the case, however, I
    would still prefer to wait and see. Whereas I suspect that
    ID will fail to show irrefutable evidence of God, it may
    prove useful in other areas of knowledge inquiry.

    <<
     Thank you Marcio for pointing out this article and its importance. Why have
     the anti-evolutionary apologists not pointed it out first?
    >>

    I am a little confuse how to interpret this.... I think you mean, "why
    is it that scientific discovery is found by evolutionists, and all the
    anti-evolutionists can do is ignore the data, avoid getting involved,
    grasp for 'Gaps', or indefinitely delay discussion and examination of
    such data." Is this something of what you mean?

    To be fair, even as a professional who does scientific research, I'm
    typically behind. It is a battle to keep up on the latest, and just
    reading the literature is at least three full time jobs now. At the same
    time, I have to make new discoveries. The article has been on
    my stack of "to read" papers, but I have to set priorities somewhere, and
    prions are not at the top of my list. I don't think apologists can be
    expected to do more than I can on a regular day, and quite reasonably,
    their coverage would have to be more selective. Nevertheless, I share
    your concern about complete silence that ID and IC folk have shown
    on such issues.

    Also, it is partly the job of scientists who share this faith to think
    about how these matters relate to the Christian faith.

    From that stand point,
    It seems that the god I expect, and the God that *Is*, are two _very_
    different things. I don't know if George Murphy is the originator of
    this quote, but he said somewhere: "How we see God, is often what
    WE would be if WE were god." (My emphasis added.)
    If I were god, I would stamp my "Intel inside" on all *my* products,
    and any punks who thought they could ignore me would get the lesson
    they really deserve. Moreover, anyone who tried to cut in on *my*
    turf would be really sorry.

    Lightning strikes, Wayne is reduced to ashes.... "for God will
    judge [me] in the same way [I] judge others, and he will apply
    to [me] the same rules [I] apply to others." (Mt 7:2)

    Frankly Glenn, as far as faith goes, I don't really have any
    answer at this time. Maybe best to say: "faith leads to
    obedience, and obedience leads to faith" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

    By Grace alone do we proceed,
    Wayne



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 20:53:26 EDT